CRIMINAL CASE NO. 322 OF 2011
COURT: I have to sentence you both for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The drug in question was methamphetamine hydrochloride and you were both
caught seeking to export the drug, through our airport, to Australia.
I accept that you were recruited as couriers and that your involvement extended no further up the chain of responsibility than that. The drugs had been taped to your legs. You, the 1st defendant, had 1,500 grammes; the 2nd defendant had 1,520 grammes.
You both have involvement with dangerous drugs with convictions for possession. In the case of the 1st defendant, you have a previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs where you were convicted in the High Court and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. That previous conviction for trafficking is the only difference between the cases of you two defendants.
You will know perfectly well that the sentence is based on guidelines and that you fall into a guideline that runs from 1,200 grammes to 4,000 grammes, attracting a starting point after trial of 23 to 26 years’ imprisonment. Given your role as couriers and the general circumstances of you both, I shall put you at the bottom of that bracket.
However, I am bound to increase the starting point to reflect the fact that there is an international element and you will appreciate the need for consistency because so many people stand in docks like this in your position. The increase is one of 2 years. The starting point is thus one of 25 years’ imprisonment after trial.
You both pleaded guilty and you both earn the one-third discount. That gives a sentence of 16 years and 8 months.
The only other consideration I need to deal with is whether I should increase the sentence of the 1st defendant by reason of her previous conviction for trafficking in what had obviously been a grave matter. I have decided not to. The reason for that is that these sentences are obviously very, very large that I have to pass, and whilst persistence in crime does justify an increase in sentence - this is the second case of trafficking - there is some persistence there but it is not as if there is a string of previous like convictions.
The final consideration in this regard is whether the 2nd defendant would feel a sense of injustice at having the same sentence. In my judgment, I do not think she will. The fact that she knows that her co-accused has spent a large period of her life behind bars, I do not think would prompt her to say that she has been unjustly treated.
I have listened to the mitigations which have told me their sad personal circumstances and the difficulties they have had with their families and I have borne that in mind. Whilst sympathetic to those matters, they are not so exceptional that it would justify me moving outside the guideline.
Accordingly, the sentence in each case is one of 16 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.